The point is, the system is so badly designed it is open to abuse. Has there ever been a case of abuse by a TSA agent that WASN'T vehemently denied and/or justified by TSA? I can't seem to find one.
Actually, the reason statutory damages are so much higher is because, until studios decided that unauthorized downloads constituted a license breach, the only way to violate a license (and incur such high damages) was for an ACTUAL publisher to violate an ACTUAL license.
It's the LAW. The LAW is always GOOD. If they are doing something LEGAL there is NO WAY it can be BAD. If the LAW says that service providers cannot be held liable for actions that their users commit, their is NO WAY it can BE ABUSED.
Big difference: Dumping is a hazard to public health. There is actual, physical danger involved. Even if the objects dumped are purely inorganic, there is danger of broken glass, sharp metals, shards of plastics, etc.
This blog is now, and always has been, a personal blog (now a a group of blogger under a single Label) used to sell a product: TechDirt's time & expertise.
Even beyond that, there is not and never has been a law/rule/whatever saying that a "reporter" of ANY caliber has to only report the facts of the news.
There is no "equal airtime."
There is no "neutral reporting."
I mean, really. Even when a weatherman does a report, he gives a prediction of how "nice" the weather will be.
I happen to like cold, gray days.
Oh me, oh my, what is this news channel coming to, if they can't even stop themselves from putting a slant on the weather?
After a little thought, though, none of what I said right there matters. What is being called both a sale and a license at the same time is NOT the deal with the music distributor.
It is the transaction that the consumer is making.
The music labels want a SINGLE TRANSACTION (the consumer paying to legally acquire the music) to be a license when determining the consumer's rights, and a sale when determining the artist's rights.
Nope, doesn't work. If it's a sale, your permissions stop when it leaves your hands. I can destroy the car, buy a car from a different brand and make a frankencar, share the car with my frinds every single day (either by carpooling or passing it around, etc.)
However, you CAN dictate terms for use in a license.
Oh, yes, you're completely right. There are absolutely no other factors involved, such a a recession, the rise of the truly indy artist (not one who is with an indy label), the change of formats (from predominately disc to predominately digital), a massive reduction in need to buy a new format version of a song when the format changes (why buy when you can convert yourself?)...
You people keep conflating government restrictions on speech to private restrictions on speech.
Once again:
Private corporations are private. The only people who can force them to regulate free speech (or NOT) are their shareholders, or the government. All a consumer has to do is move to a different medium/channel, unless the government has restricted that speech.
Our government is forbidden to restrict speech (barring a clear and present preventable danger). But only in our own country. Each country has it's own sets of rules that it is allowed to follow.
Twitter is following the GOVERNMENT mandates in the countries it is being forced to censor. And it is, in fact, breaking those rules by doing it's best to show it's customers in those countries what is being censored, thereby mostly invalidating the censors.
You have no idea what you're asking for, though. If a government is not formed artificially, it will form organically: around individuals and groups charismatic and/or powerful enough to get support. Then you are left with oligarchies, monarchies, and the like.
Even from purely an anarchic economy standpoint, once transportation and communication evolved enough to allow easy connection between distant areas, things devolved into trusts. As transportation and communication improved, things got even worse.
You still have the choice of removing yourself from the system you so disapprove of. As for the rest of us, we see it (for the most part) as protection from the unruly and unsavory elements. The laws and regulations we have established give us a way to deter, and, if we have to, punish those who hurt and deprive the masses. At the same time, those laws limit our methods of punishment to those that are not cruel or unusual.
So as much as I would like to smack you upside the head for being so shortsighted and selfish, I'm not allowed to under the laws that our system has established. Under an anarchic system, the only reprisals I would fear would be those that you could come up with.
Frankly, I don't trust you to respect my property lines, let alone not kill me for disagreeing with you. So I'll take the laws, thank you.
On the post: MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet they still manage to make money.
It must be because they're so big, it wouldn't work for anyone else.
On the post: TSA Insists That It Doesn't Pick Hot Women Out For Extra Scrutiny
Re: Not convinced
On the post: Beastie Boy Mike D Forces AT&T To Let Shareholders Vote On Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: Sky News Tells Reporters Not To Use Twitter To Break News Without Permission
Re: Eh, I live in Houston, and...
Except NBC. I don't know why, but for some reason, NBC's local news is just... awful.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright law is NOT a bad LAW.
On the post: How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position
Re: Edit
Since you would have to bypass the DRM to change formats or devices, activities that were once perfectly legal were nonsensically made infringement.
On the post: How Does The Penalty For 'Content Theft' Match Up With Similar 'Crimes'?
Re: Re: Re: Not as fitting as you pretend.
On the post: Iranian Filmmaker Banned From Filmmaking... Makes Documentary Via His iPhone About His Plight
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they do that job well enough, then they get paid.
That's why the "starving artist" doesn't just flip burgers. Flipping burgers doesn't get their art to people.
On the post: It's Time To Let Politicians Know That Using Secretive Trade Agreements To Meddle With The Internet Is Unacceptable
Re: Re: Re:
Just because the feeling is reflected, it doesn't make it wrong.
On the post: It's Time To Let Politicians Know That Using Secretive Trade Agreements To Meddle With The Internet Is Unacceptable
Re:
Even beyond that, there is not and never has been a law/rule/whatever saying that a "reporter" of ANY caliber has to only report the facts of the news.
There is no "equal airtime."
There is no "neutral reporting."
I mean, really. Even when a weatherman does a report, he gives a prediction of how "nice" the weather will be.
I happen to like cold, gray days.
Oh me, oh my, what is this news channel coming to, if they can't even stop themselves from putting a slant on the weather?
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re:
It is the transaction that the consumer is making.
The music labels want a SINGLE TRANSACTION (the consumer paying to legally acquire the music) to be a license when determining the consumer's rights, and a sale when determining the artist's rights.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re:
If a consumer "purchases" a license, then the "sale" was of a license.
If the consumer "buys" a license, then the artist gets a much higher royalty.
If the "sale" is for a license, then violating that license is a civil matter, at least under current law.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: They are a license and a sale...
However, you CAN dictate terms for use in a license.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant "-masnicking-"
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pshaw. You'd know that if you ever read the contract, you damned-dirty-fatboy-masnicing-freetarded grifter!
On the post: How Much Of The Collapse Of Recorded Music Sales Revenue Was Due To The End Of Illegal Price Fixing?
Re:
I'm sorry, what were you saying?
On the post: If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
Re:
Once again:
Private corporations are private. The only people who can force them to regulate free speech (or NOT) are their shareholders, or the government. All a consumer has to do is move to a different medium/channel, unless the government has restricted that speech.
Our government is forbidden to restrict speech (barring a clear and present preventable danger). But only in our own country. Each country has it's own sets of rules that it is allowed to follow.
Twitter is following the GOVERNMENT mandates in the countries it is being forced to censor. And it is, in fact, breaking those rules by doing it's best to show it's customers in those countries what is being censored, thereby mostly invalidating the censors.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: confused approach
Even from purely an anarchic economy standpoint, once transportation and communication evolved enough to allow easy connection between distant areas, things devolved into trusts. As transportation and communication improved, things got even worse.
You still have the choice of removing yourself from the system you so disapprove of. As for the rest of us, we see it (for the most part) as protection from the unruly and unsavory elements. The laws and regulations we have established give us a way to deter, and, if we have to, punish those who hurt and deprive the masses. At the same time, those laws limit our methods of punishment to those that are not cruel or unusual.
So as much as I would like to smack you upside the head for being so shortsighted and selfish, I'm not allowed to under the laws that our system has established. Under an anarchic system, the only reprisals I would fear would be those that you could come up with.
Frankly, I don't trust you to respect my property lines, let alone not kill me for disagreeing with you. So I'll take the laws, thank you.
On the post: Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
Re: Re: Re: confused approach
Next >>